The Impact of discourse-pragmatic factors on object omission in Persian

Document Type : Research

Authors

1 PhD candidate, Department of linguistics, University of Isfahan.Isfahan. Iran

2 Associate professor, Department of linguistics, University of Isfahan. Isfahan. Iran

Abstract

Object omission construction is a valency-reduction process in which a transitive verb appears without its object and is used as an intransitive one. However, the addressee can still understand the meaning of the objectless sentence. The type of object omission considered in this paper is context-independent, in which the referent of the omitted object is not mentioned in previous context and the context does not provide any clue to recover the unspecified object. Among different factors which can affect object omission, in this research aims to find out the discourse-pragmatic factors which can facilitate this construction in Persian.

Keywords

References

  1. Cennamo, M. (2017). Object omission and the semantics of predicates in Italian in a comparative perspective. In L. Hellan, A. Malchukov & M. Cennamo (Eds.), Introduction: Issues in contrastive valency studies (pp. 251-273). John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.237.08cen
  2. Croft, W. (2003). Typology and universals. Cambridge University Press. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=1273754
  3. Eu, J. (2018). On the nature of object omission: indefiniteness as indeterminacy. English Language and Linguistics, 22(3), 523-530. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674317000296
  4. Fellbaum, C. (2007). Introduction. In C. Fellbaum, Idioms and collocations (pp. 1-19). Continuum.
  5. Fillmore, C. J. (1986). Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. Proceeding of twelfth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 95-107. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v12i0.1866
  6. Glass, L. (2020). Verbs describing routines facilitate object omission in English. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America, 5, 44-58. https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v5i1.4663
  7. Goldberg, A. (2001). Patient arguments of causative verbs can be omitted: The role of information structure in argument distribution. Language Sciences, 23, 503-524. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(00)00034-6
  8. Graf, E., Theakstone, A., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2015). Subject and object omission in children’s early transitive constructions: A discourse- pragmatic approach. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 701- 727. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716413000477
  9. Haghbin, F., & Asadi, H. (2014). Again' Rā': This Time Colloquial. Zabanpazhuhi, 5(901), 61-86. https://doi.org/10.22051/jlr.2014.1073
  10. Halliday, M. (1966). Lexis as a linguistic level. In C. Bazell, J. Catford, M. Halliday, & R. Robinss (Eds.), In memory of J. R. Firth (pp. 148-62). Longman. https://www.degruyter.com/how-access-works
  11. Heusinger, K. V. (2002). Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics, 19, 245-274. https://idsl1.phil-fak.uni-koeln.de/sites/IDSLI/dozentenseiten/Heusinger/Publikationen
  12. Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical priming. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203327630
  13. Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations. University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/E/bo3684144.html
  14. Liu, D. (2008). Intransitive or object deleting: Classifying English verbs used without an object. Journal of English Linguistics, 36, 289-313. https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424208317128
  15. Luraghi, S. (2004). Null objects in Latin and Greek and the relevance of linguistic typology for language reconstruction. Journal of Indo- European Monograph Series, 49, 234- 256. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
  16. McEnery, A. M., & Wilson, A. (2001). Corpus linguistics. Edinburgh University Press. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=2348267
  17. Mousavi, H., & Amouzadeh, M. (2019). An investigation of motivations behind collocations based on Frame Semantics: the case study of ‘dast’. Journal of Linguistics & Khorasan Dialects, 11(1), 193-225. https://doi.org/10.22067/lj.v11i1.67640 [in Persian]
  18. Nᴂss, A. (2007). Prototypical transitivity. John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.72
  19. Rice, S. (1988). Unlikely lexical entries. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Berkeley Linguistics Society, 202-212. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v14i0.1797.
  20. Safavi, K. (2011). An introduction to semantics. Soureye mehr. https://sooremehr.ir/book/913/ [in Persian]
  21. Song, J. J. (2018). Linguistic typology. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2016-0004
  22. Tsimpli, I. M., & Papadopoulou, D. (2006). Aspect and argument realization: A study on antecedentless null objects in Greek. Lingua, 116, 1595- 1615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.07.011
  23. Velasco, D. G., & Munoz, C. P. (2002). Understood objects in functional Grammar. Working Paper in Functional Grammar, 76, 1-24. https://fdg.humanities.uva.nl/working_papers/WPFG76.pdf
  24. Vihman, V. (2004). Valency reduction in Estonian [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Edinburgh. https://era.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/25272?show=full
  25. Zyzik, E. C. (2008). Null objects in second language acquisition: Grammatical vs. performance models. Second Language Research, 24, 65-110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658307082982
  26. www.sedayemoallem.ir
  27. www.ninisite.com
  28. www.ninisite.com
ZABANPAZHUHI (Journal of Language Research)
Volume 16, Issue 52 - Serial Number 52
October 2024
Pages 129-151

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics